See eg NY Const. Art. 1, Sec. 3
NY PML Sec 105 and Sec 109 does not pass the laugh test.
Religious freedom? Not in NY. CArdinal Andrew Cuomo in charge.
Catholics Sue Over Health Mandate
more in Politics & Policy »
By LOUISE RADNOFSKY
The University of Notre Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and 41 other Roman Catholic institutions sued the Obama administration in federal court Monday, the latest push against a requirement in the health-care-overhaul law that employers cover contraception in workers' health plans.The lawsuits were brought in a dozen different jurisdictions in the U.S., and plaintiffs included the Catholic University of America and archdioceses serving Dallas, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Washington, D.C.
Roman Catholic institutions are suing the Obama administration in the latest push against a requirement in the health-care-overhaul law that employers cover contraception in workers' health plans. Louise Radnofsky has details on The News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.
The Senate voted 51-48 in March against an effort that would have scrapped the contraception requirement. Republicans warned against forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs, and Democrats accused their rivals of seeking to roll back women's rights.
Since then, polls have suggested that the Republicans hurt their standing with women voters in the debate, while Democrats continue to see the issue as a winning one for them.
The plaintiffs object to a provision that requires most employers to cover all preventive health services including contraception as part of their insurance policies, without out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Sterilization was one of the methods of birth control included, as was the so-called morning-after pill.
Chicago Tribune/MCT via Getty Images
University of Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, with President Obama, said federal birth-control rules conflict with the school's values.
Catholic leaders have been doubtful that proposal could work, noting that it would be difficult to keep religious employers' dollars from subsidizing any insurance coverage of contraception.
But they have also expressed broader concerns, saying that even if a compromise is worked out for religiously affiliated institutions, it wouldn't address the objections of employers who are Catholic and run secular businesses.
"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress—and we'll keep at it—but there's still no fix," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."
The bishops' conference said it had helped coordinate the lawsuits along with the law firm Jones Day, in Cleveland, which previously has represented several of the entities involved (parochial schools and Catholic charities also were among the plaintiffs).
Representatives of the conference and the law firm wouldn't say whether any institutions they invited to join the legal action declined to do so.
The Obama administration had no public response to Monday's lawsuits, and hasn't commented on previous cases that have been filed by several smaller religiously affiliated universities and charities against the contraception provision, along with seven state attorneys general.
An administration official familiar with the discussions said Monday that federal agencies were still trying to work with Catholic leaders to implement its proposal from February, and would continue to do so.
"Lawsuits or no lawsuits, our doors remain open," the official said.
The lawsuit represents a fraying of the relationship between the White House and Notre Dame, which is filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The university's leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, hosted President Barack Obama as the school's commencement speaker in May 2009 despite criticism over Mr. Obama's support of abortion rights. Father Jenkins initially applauded the administration's proposal in February.
But on Monday, he said talks with the administration on how to enact that proposal hadn't been encouraging, and that there was no firm timeline to resolve religious employers' lingering concerns. He said that left the school unable to change its health plans around the requirement in time to meet the August 2013 deadline.
Father Jenkins said in a statement Monday that the decision to sue the administration had been taken "neither lightly nor gladly, but with sober determination."
"We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the government not impose its values on the university when those values conflict with our religious teachings," he said.
Notre Dame's lawsuit also noted that, "These services are widely available in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that individuals have a constitutional right to use such services. And nothing that Notre Dame does inhibits any individual from exercising that right."
The requirement is already prompting some schools to rethink their insurance offerings. The Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said last month that it was dropping its student-sponsored insurance plan because of the requirement, among other reasons.
In February, Mr. Obama said the controversy was "an issue where people of goodwill on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions to find a solution that works for everyone."
"We've done that," he said of the administration's proposal. "Religious liberty will be protected, and a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women."
Some first-amendment legal experts say the lawsuits face a slim chance of success. Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, pointed to a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, that established that groups cannot cite their religion as an excuse to disregard generally applicable laws.
Others, including Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett, say the suits may be able to successfully draw on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which requires the federal government to consider the rights of religious groups when crafting policy.
That law says the government can "substantially burden" people in practicing their religion only if it can show that there is a "compelling governmental interest" and that its policy is "the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.
Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment